[dead]
America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
201–210 of 218 posts
Re: America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially when you consider that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and barely had an air force and anti-air, yet Russia failed at establishing air or naval control, let alone dominance. Ukraine had dozens of airworthy fighter jets and well over a hundred air defense batteries at the start. Many of the latter were lost in the first weeks but Ukraine was fairly packed as far as smaller nations go. > Russia has no chance o…
> Ukraine had dozens of airworthy fighter jets Russia had how many hundreds? And how much time to prepare how to neutralise them? > , Russian chance of occupying significant part of Baltics with realistic level of NATO involvement is 1 in 3. It would be most certainly able to overrun the three states absent NATO support No. If Russia attacks the Baltics, it's guaranteed that Poland will join (with at least some NATO…
> Russia had how many hundreds? And how much time to prepare how to neutralise them?
Few dozen fighters on alert in a heavy AD environment is objectively a lot. Most of Ukrainian early AD losses happened in the south and were the outcome of treason by the regional command.
> No. If Russia attacks the Baltics, it's guaranteed that Poland will join (with at least some NATO support).
I feel you're talking past me. Yes Poland will join, absolutely: the battle for Suwalki/Kaliningrad will affect it directly if anything. But without the US commitment (which I hope you realize is not happening) there is a 1 in 3 chance of Putin's substantial success.
> Years of preparation and conscious arming with a real budget? Ukraine had to go from a small and under equipped (mostly with obsolete Soviet era stuff) army to a total war in mere days.
Ukraine was waging a war with Russia for 8 years by the day of the full scale invasion. It was prepared about as much as a country in its circumstances could be. Had this invasion happened in 2014 that really would have been the touted 3-day operation.
> Why on earth do you think it could handle more fronts, especially against better equipped and prepared enemies? Nobody is saying Putin is rational, but even he has to know that.
Every serious European government is gearing up for the war now, so it's clearly not just me alone. The mode of fighting had changed substantially. F-35s a great for cooking off tank waves (that mostly don't exist anymore) but are not very useful against waves of meat sweeping through the forests and millions of attack drones.
NATO is still a formidable force even without the US component but coordinated action would be critical and it's a huge question still. Poland and Finland alone will not be enough to blunt the attack on the Baltic states which are very logistically vulnerable. So Putin has a fair, largely consequence free shot at it but the window of opportunity will close within a year or two.
Re: America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ukraine had dozens of airworthy fighter jets Russia had how many hundreds? And how much time to prepare how to neutralise them? > , Russian chance of occupying significant part of Baltics with realistic level of NATO involvement is 1 in 3. It would be most certainly able to overrun the three states absent NATO support No. If Russia attacks the Baltics, it's guaranteed that Poland will join (with at least some NATO…
> Russia had how many hundreds? And how much time to prepare how to neutralise them? Few dozen fighters on alert in a heavy AD environment is objectively a lot. Most of Ukrainian early AD losses happened in the south and were the outcome of treason by the regional command. > No. If Russia attacks the Baltics, it's guaranteed that Poland will join (with at least some NATO support). I feel you're talking past me. Yes P…
> Yes Poland will join, absolutely: the battle for Suwalki/Kaliningrad will affect it directly if anything. But without the US commitment (which I hope you realize is not happening) there is a 1 in 3 chance of Putin's substantial success.
So you think that a Russia that cannot defeat Ukraine has a chance to win, meaning you think they have the troops, equipment and logistics to defeat Poland, the Baltics and Finland at the same time? There is no planet on which this makes sense.
> So Putin has a fair, largely consequence free shot at it but the window of opportunity will close within a year or two.
Not only does he not have the troops nor equipment, a year or two window still leaves Macron in the Elysée who will not let such an attack slide, up to and including potential nuclear weapons. And has stated so clearly and publicly.
You seem very confident, but your premise is wrong and lacking in critical information.
Re: America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially when you consider that Ukraine doesn't have a navy and barely had an air force and anti-air, yet Russia failed at establishing air or naval control, let alone dominance. Ukraine had dozens of airworthy fighter jets and well over a hundred air defense batteries at the start. Many of the latter were lost in the first weeks but Ukraine was fairly packed as far as smaller nations go. > Russia has no chance o…
> Name one thing in Polish military that Ukrainian military today doesn't have though? Lack of combat experience. But seriously, very good analysis!
> But seriously, very good analysis
Nah, it's utter bullshit. Russia can't defeat Ukraine on its own, but they think Russia has a 1 in 3 chance of victory if they add Poland, Baltics, Finland to their war? It's pure wishful nonsense.
Re: America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Russia had how many hundreds? And how much time to prepare how to neutralise them? Few dozen fighters on alert in a heavy AD environment is objectively a lot. Most of Ukrainian early AD losses happened in the south and were the outcome of treason by the regional command. > No. If Russia attacks the Baltics, it's guaranteed that Poland will join (with at least some NATO support). I feel you're talking past me. Yes P…
> Yes Poland will join, absolutely: the battle for Suwalki/Kaliningrad will affect it directly if anything. But without the US commitment (which I hope you realize is not happening) there is a 1 in 3 chance of Putin's substantial success. So you think that a Russia that cannot defeat Ukraine has a chance to win, meaning you think they have the troops, equipment and logistics to defeat Poland, the Baltics and Finland…
> So you think that a Russia that cannot defeat Ukraine has a chance to win, meaning you think they have the troops, equipment and logistics to defeat Poland, the Baltics and Finland at the same time?
No, just the Baltics. There will be no attack on Polish or Finnish mainland and so would these countries reciprocate only on the Baltic theatre. Neither Poland nor Finland will commit all their resources to defending the Baltics exposing the rest of their border.
The Baltics can be supplied only by air, sea and a very vulnerable land corridor. Air and sea will be very much excluded for the duration of hostilites and the Suwalki gap heavily contested. If Russia would manage to hold onto it long enough the Baltic story will be one huge siege of Mariupol. For Estonia the odds are the worst: even if the siege is broken and its neighbors are liberated it's too small and too close to Russia mainland that it could still remain under effective Russian control.
> You seem very confident, but your premise is wrong and lacking in critical information.
Well back in September 2021 I felt that the attack on Ukraine is coming (and have the receipts for that). Certainly not just me alone but at that moment and up to the very invasion there was huge skepticism around, and not just among Putin shills. "How would it help Russian security?" "But Sweden and Finland would join NATO!" "Russian economy would reel from sanctions, why do that!" Yet here we are.
I remember participating at a national championship here in Norway on 18.02.2024 and my teammate asked me what do I think of the situation. My take was that we're days, if not hours from the invasion and certainly within a week. He was quite startled by it then.
This year on the same championship people in the cafeteria were talking about the coming war matter-of-factly.
Re: America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes Poland will join, absolutely: the battle for Suwalki/Kaliningrad will affect it directly if anything. But without the US commitment (which I hope you realize is not happening) there is a 1 in 3 chance of Putin's substantial success. So you think that a Russia that cannot defeat Ukraine has a chance to win, meaning you think they have the troops, equipment and logistics to defeat Poland, the Baltics and Finland…
> So you think that a Russia that cannot defeat Ukraine has a chance to win, meaning you think they have the troops, equipment and logistics to defeat Poland, the Baltics and Finland at the same time? No, just the Baltics. There will be no attack on Polish or Finnish mainland and so would these countries reciprocate only on the Baltic theatre. Neither Poland nor Finland will commit all their resources to defending th…
> No, just the Baltics. There will be no attack on Polish or Finnish mainland and so would these countries reciprocate only on the Baltic theatre. Neither Poland nor Finland will commit all their resources to defending the Baltics exposing the rest of their border
Ah, so your premise is even wronger. You're making a Hitler style assumption of a limited war.
If Russia attacks the Baltics, Poland and Finland will join for sure. Poland will attack and probably conquer Kaliningrad (which is more isolated than the Baltic is), establishing firm lines of communication with the Baltic states. They will also advance wherever it makes sense in Russia/Belarus, including Ukraine for an environment if they think it makes sense.
Finland can attack towards St Petersbourg. I don't know if they would, but it would be the main contribution they could make.
As for you being right before, past performance is not indicative of future success. Just because you correctly identified Putin's intentions once doesn't mean you understand the Russian army and what it's capable of.
And it is not capable of taking on Poland. Kaliningrad is isolated and hard to supply right now, let alone in a war.
And you're also talking about a window of 1-2 years, but you're forgetting Macron and Starmer.
Re: America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you think that a Russia that cannot defeat Ukraine has a chance to win, meaning you think they have the troops, equipment and logistics to defeat Poland, the Baltics and Finland at the same time? No, just the Baltics. There will be no attack on Polish or Finnish mainland and so would these countries reciprocate only on the Baltic theatre. Neither Poland nor Finland will commit all their resources to defending th…
> No, just the Baltics. There will be no attack on Polish or Finnish mainland and so would these countries reciprocate only on the Baltic theatre. Neither Poland nor Finland will commit all their resources to defending the Baltics exposing the rest of their border Ah, so your premise is even wronger. You're making a Hitler style assumption of a limited war. If Russia attacks the Baltics, Poland and Finland will join…
This is a pointless conversation. I could turn around and accuse you of being overconfident just as well, especially in the days when Germany and France feel it prudent to covnert automobile plants to tank manufacturing.
I naturally hope there will be no broader war but there is plenty of odds to it, and dismissing this is just hubris. Cheers.
Re: America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
#208Maybe we need a CVE-like database that isn't dependent on the government of the USA? This is a weakness of the IT world as such.
CVE folks are working on diversifying their funding sources:
Re: America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you are not Putin and he is not you. Attacking Ukraine wasn’t a gamble for him, it was a presumably easy win, like Georgia in 2008. Attack on NATO on Baltic shore isn’t an easy win, it’s a gamble. And what is this test for? America has already learned the lesson and is withdrawing from Russian periphery. Europe has no interest in power games, UK is in irreversible decline. NATO is not going to expand anymore in f…
You are trying to hypothesise a rational actor except you model the actor on ordinary people. An aging authoritarian is not concerned with long term security, well being of his subjects or boring diplomatic minutae. Seeing his days vanishing, he is intent on leaving a mark in history. What matters is not how pretty the mark is going to be but how visible shall it be through centuries. And since the authoritarian's st…
You are describing a fantasy fiction, but reality is not that simple. Putin’s actions were very rational by Western standards of reasoning (NB not moral standards). His invasion had a point, but was based on bad intelligence and some logical flaws, just like American invasion to Iraq two decades before. He is no more crazy than Chinese or Iranian leaders and probably more sane than current American administration. He is absolutely ordinary man, a grandpa who accidentally came to power, is afraid of retirement and whose views were influenced by external factors. He is not a philosopher, he had not written lots of books on his ideology etc. He is not on a mission, even if he may dream about it. He just steers the wheel and seizes the opportunities. If you look further in the past, the whole Ukrainian conflict may have started from a single naval base in Sevastopol, loosing which would be a major blow in the chess game. And then one escalation followed another, leading into current quagmire. And he was just carried in the stream. He has no exit strategy but to wait for something to happen. NATO just need to hold firm and have enough presence on borders to make blitzkrieg impossible.
Re: America's cyber defenses are being dismantled from the inside
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, just the Baltics. There will be no attack on Polish or Finnish mainland and so would these countries reciprocate only on the Baltic theatre. Neither Poland nor Finland will commit all their resources to defending the Baltics exposing the rest of their border Ah, so your premise is even wronger. You're making a Hitler style assumption of a limited war. If Russia attacks the Baltics, Poland and Finland will join…
This is a pointless conversation. I could turn around and accuse you of being overconfident just as well, especially in the days when Germany and France feel it prudent to covnert automobile plants to tank manufacturing. I naturally hope there will be no broader war but there is plenty of odds to it, and dismissing this is just hubris. Cheers.
Yes, Germany and France and the UK are gearing up for war. Then why do you claim that Russia will attack the Baltic and there's a chance it will be a limited war only there? Do you think Germany and France are gearing up for fun and won't actually do anything if Russia tests their resolve with an attack on a direct ally? Especially when Macron is publicly stating that France's nuclear weapons also protect Europe?
There might be a broader war, yes. That doesn't mean Russia has realistic hopes or chances of it remaining local, and Russia coming out with anything resembling a win.